7.62 vs 5.56 [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : 7.62 vs 5.56


NU2GLOCK22
01-20-2012, 20:23
Which has the better knock down power. Used to own a SKS 7.62x39mm it was a fun shooter. Not sure if I want to go back to a AK SKS or AR platform all input welcome.

Berto
01-20-2012, 20:29
THe AK round will hit harder and is generally thought to be the better penetrator of hard barriers. The 5.56 offers a flatter trajectory, generally better quality ammo and better long range abilities. It may not be quite as capable in some ways as the Ruskie, but it does inflict tissue damage well disproportionate to its size.

MoneyMaker
01-20-2012, 20:31
up to 200 yards 7.62x39 all day,after that up to 500 yards 5.56.In real word situation i would still take the 5.56 due to ammo being lighter to carry

nipperwolf
01-20-2012, 20:34
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting

dakrat
01-20-2012, 20:35
a jackhammer

rgregoryb
01-20-2012, 20:38
7.62x51

chrisf608
01-20-2012, 20:39
Knockdown for what? Hunting?

chrisf608
01-20-2012, 20:40
7.62x51
Very True.

NU2GLOCK22
01-20-2012, 20:43
Knockdown for what? Hunting?

I don,t think you can hunt with either of these calibers ????

Berto
01-20-2012, 20:45
Yesyoucan.

chrisf608
01-20-2012, 20:45
I don,t think you can hunt with either of these calibers ????

You can here. 7.62x39 is a larger projectile. I prefer the 5.56 its a good medium range round.

CTfam
01-20-2012, 20:46
AKs are better than ARs. Glocks are better than 1911s. Mossbergs are better than Remingtons. This has already been discussed.














:tongueout:

NU2GLOCK22
01-20-2012, 20:51
I am from Oregon will have to check on the laws about hunting with these calls

chrisf608
01-20-2012, 20:55
AKs are better than ARs. Glocks are better than 1911s. Mossbergs are better than Remingtons. This has already been discussed.














:tongueout:
And now we are going over it again.:tongueout:

chrisf608
01-20-2012, 20:56
I am from Oregon will have to check on the laws about hunting with these calls
Typically anything larger than .22 is legal.

Todd00000
01-20-2012, 21:00
I know of a USMC Medal of Honor recipient that took 10 DShK rounds to the torso and still killed the VC machine gunner before succumbing to his wounds. Also read “99 Confirmed Kills" you will read a story of Hathcock’s AG putting 10 NATO 7.62 rounds into a VC with no effect. Hathcock had to make a head shot. People need to educate themselves on all the pros and cons before bad mouthing the M4 and 5.56.

Did you know the US Army Rangers don’t like the SCAR 7.62. It doesn’t fill a need and the recoil is so bad that only one scope will work on it, they were breaking ACOGs on the zero range. US Army Rangers like the 5.56 with the M4 and M249 and use the 7.62 in the M-110 and M240B Light.

The below article is good and shows the pros and cons of larger calibers.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news..._ammo_031010w/ (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/03/marine_ammo_031010w/)


Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan, commander of Marine Corps Systems Command, told Marine Corps Times in mid-February that “there’s a long-going argument about the stopping power of 5.56 in general.” But he said even Marines don’t always fall after they’ve been shot by insurgents with multiple 7.62mm rounds, citing Navy Cross recipient Sgt. Maj. Brad Kasal, who was hit with seven 7.62mm rounds in Iraq in 2004 but survived and kept fighting.

“Does that mean that 7.62 rounds don’t have sufficient stopping power?” Brogan asked about Kasal’s actions. “I submit the answer is no. If there had been a central-nervous shot, it might have dropped him. The same is true with 5.56 ammunition. Location is more important than stopping power.”


Read the FBI report.

crazymoose
01-20-2012, 21:08
THe AK round will hit harder and is generally thought to be the better penetrator of hard barriers. The 5.56 offers a flatter trajectory, generally better quality ammo and better long range abilities. It may not be quite as capable in some ways as the Ruskie, but it does inflict tissue damage well disproportionate to its size.

There's "dense" cover and "hard" cover. The 7.62x39 will go through wood or cinderblock better, but the 5.56 has the edge for hardened steel, body armor, etc.

As far as "hits harder," look at two of the best loads in each caliber:

Hornady 123 grain TAP in 7.62x39
http://www.hornadyle.com/assets/uploads/8078-762x39-123-GR-VMAX-gel.jpg

Hornady 75 grain TAP in 5.56
http://www.hornadyle.com/assets/uploads/556_NATO_75_BTHP_WC_T2_4website.jpg

Pretty close, with a slight edge going to 5.56. For hunting, where deep penetration and retained weight are desirable, it's 7.62x39 all the way. Both rounds are good for certain applications, and both will certainly do the job in social situations. People get fixated on the perceived innate power of a .30 caliber round, though, and really shouldn't. As others have pointed out, there are no 100%, for-sure stoppers. That said, I'm partial to the 155 grain TAP in.308:http://www.hornadyle.com/assets/uploads/308WIN_155_AMAX_4website.jpg

Still, for about half the weight and recoil of the .308, the 5.56 gives you about 2/3 of the permanent wound cavity. Not too shabby. Guys in Afghanistan are taking out threats at 500 yards with some of the heavier 5.56 loads. They do the job.

Restless28
01-20-2012, 21:11
This is just an AK vs AR thread.

Knockdown? The AK is basically a 30 and up round 30/30 caliber, semi-auto carbine. The 30/30 has killed millions of deers. The 5.56? Pretty much illegal to hunt deer. IMO, it's cruel to hunt deer with a 5.56 or .223.

How many wars/conflicts has the AR won? How many has the AK won?

What's the point of the OP's question?

Todd00000
01-20-2012, 21:13
...
If ballistic gel had a nervous system this would mean something.

A-Train
01-20-2012, 21:50
Did you know the US Army Rangers don’t like the SCAR 7.62. It doesn’t fill a need and the recoil is so bad that only one scope will work on it, they were breaking ACOGs on the zero range. US Army Rangers like the 5.56 with the M4 and M249 and use the 7.62 in the M-110 and M240B Light.


I did NOT know the information that you share above and I'd like to see some links to articles that cover it. Not that I'm doubting you but I know I've read several articles about how the SEALs seem to be fairly happy with the SCAR Heavy and I've seen no articles online or in print that said anything about the Rangers liking or disliking them. If I can find them again I'll will post the links.

I am personally a huge fan of ACOG's (and have used them overseas on two deployments) and I do find it very hard to believe that the recoil would be bad enough to "break" them on the zero range. I've seen ACOG's on .50 caliber rifles without having that problem.

I think that 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable mid-range (0-400m) round especially in the heavier bullet weights. The 7.62/.308 is much better at reducing most cover to concealment, in my experience, but with the weight difference in the rounds I'll take more bullets in 5.56 to less in 7.62. Of course I was a tanker so I have a strong preference to 120mm but that's a bit hard to hump around all day with on foot. :rofl:

crazymoose
01-20-2012, 21:55
If ballistic gel had a nervous system this would mean something.

Not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with. Are you counting on a head or spinal shot every time? Most of the time it comes down to tissue destroyed and blood loss, and gel is pretty good for comparing the effects of different rounds.

my762buzz
01-20-2012, 21:59
Which has the better knock down power. Used to own a SKS 7.62x39mm it was a fun shooter. Not sure if I want to go back to a AK SKS or AR platform all input welcome.

With the right bullets, both 223 and 7.62 can distribute their full payload pretty well.
The main difference is momentum. The 7.62 weighs more and by default wins.
Seriously, isn't this why so many people praise the 45 acp over the 9mm when both have similar kinetic energy levels. It would be kind of crazy to say 45 acp is better than 9mm because of the significantly larger mass, but then flip flop and say the 233 is better than 7.62. With 7.62 bullets there is twice the weight that you can work with 223. We can extend the same logic to even larger size calibers with relative rifle speeds. 223<7.62<35 Rem<45-70<700 nitro

chrisf608
01-20-2012, 22:11
This is just an AK vs AR thread.

Knockdown? The AK is basically a 30 and up round 30/30 caliber, semi-auto carbine. The 30/30 has killed millions of deers. The 5.56? Pretty much illegal to hunt deer. IMO, it's cruel to hunt deer with a 5.56 or .223.

How many wars/conflicts has the AR won? How many has the AK won?

What's the point of the OP's question?

Cruel oh so? I have had 2 one shot drops on Whitetails. I prefer .308 bolt but for the brush and short shooting its the AR or 10mm

crsuribe
01-20-2012, 22:17
How many wars/conflicts has the AR won? How many has the AK won?
Every single major military conflict in recent history, basically since being introduced. At least militarily. Conflicts have been left unfinished or even half assed due to politics but never due to the lack of capacity and power from our military.

Pretty badass rifle and an an important American icon, which adds a lot to its glory!

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee56/crsuribe/031110mc_ammo_800.jpg

RWBlue
01-20-2012, 22:24
7.62x51

7.62×67mm has a little more power.

crsuribe
01-20-2012, 22:33
7.62×67mm has a little more power.
7.62x51 has a bit more accuracy and variety of loads, even better performance all around. :supergrin:

RWBlue
01-20-2012, 22:49
7.62x51 has a bit more accuracy and variety of loads, even better performance all around. :supergrin:

The 7.62x51 should have better accuracy out to a certain range, but beyond that range the 7.62x67 will perform better.

If we are looking for the best all around performer, it is the 7.62x54 (not the 7.62x54R). It has more loads and more capability to go large and small. This is especially true for hand loaders.

Additionally, the OP is only asking for knock down power. When we talk knock down power, bigger is better.

Javelin
01-20-2012, 23:23
I like them both so I love the 300 Blackout.

:supergrin:

USDefender
01-20-2012, 23:32
Every single major military conflict in recent history, basically since being introduced. At least militarily. Conflicts have been left unfinished or even half assed due to politics but never due to the lack of capacity and power from our military.

Pretty badass rifle and an an important American icon, which adds a lot to its glory!

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee56/crsuribe/031110mc_ammo_800.jpg


+1

Admittedly, I've bashed the 'AR platform' in the recent past, but it was never over the 5.56 caliber round it fires... Plenty of dead VC and Arabs can attest to the round's effectiveness. My only beef (based on my military experience with the M-16) is with the AR's 'blowback' system that puts way more gunk in the chamber than should be there, imo.

Now. Penetration-wise, the 7.62x39 round does have it beat. But then the 5.56 just simply tears up the Russian caliber in the accuracy department. So, with the origional question being: 'Which has the better knock down power?', I'm thinking that the 7.62 comes out on top-- although, I'm sure absolutely NOBODY wants to get shot by either... :whistling:

cole
01-21-2012, 02:47
The 7.62x39 is the better choice to get to the target through something else. Otherwise, they're pretty much the same. I chose 7.62x39 for defeating barriers. And, I prefer the AK to the AR aside from caliber.

MoneyMaker
01-21-2012, 04:05
This is just an AK vs AR thread.

Knockdown? The AK is basically a 30 and up round 30/30 caliber, semi-auto carbine. The 30/30 has killed millions of deers. The 5.56? Pretty much illegal to hunt deer. IMO, it's cruel to hunt deer with a 5.56 or .223.

How many wars/conflicts has the AR won? How many has the AK won?

What's the point of the OP's question?

bwahahahaha cruel to kill a deer with 5.56 but its ok to kill a 200 pound human with it:dunno:

NEOH212
01-21-2012, 04:15
Very True.

Hands down, it's the winner. :thumbsup:

G19ftw
01-21-2012, 06:56
bwahahahaha cruel to kill a deer with 5.56 but its ok to kill a 200 pound human with it:dunno:

Deer aren't built like people. They stand on all fours and their back protects their vitals; while we stand upright, with our vitals exposed.

The deer didn't do anything wrong to deserve to die, so the least we can offer is a quick clean kill. The human knows what they are getting themselves into.

That said, I don't have a problem with .223 being used on deer, though shot placement is critical.

collim1
01-21-2012, 07:22
Typically anything larger than .22 is legal.

Only requirement my state has is "centerfire mushrooming ammuntion".

7.62x39 is plenty for deer. Its pretty similar to .30-30win and no one would argue that is a bad caliber for deer.

Todd00000
01-21-2012, 09:58
I did NOT know the information that you share above and I'd like to see some links to articles that cover it. Not that I'm doubting you but I know I've read several articles about how the SEALs seem to be fairly happy with the SCAR Heavy and I've seen no articles online or in print that said anything about the Rangers liking or disliking them. If I can find them again I'll will post the links.

I am personally a huge fan of ACOG's (and have used them overseas on two deployments) and I do find it very hard to believe that the recoil would be bad enough to "break" them on the zero range. I've seen ACOG's on .50 caliber rifles without having that problem.

I think that 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable mid-range (0-400m) round especially in the heavier bullet weights. The 7.62/.308 is much better at reducing most cover to concealment, in my experience, but with the weight difference in the rounds I'll take more bullets in 5.56 to less in 7.62. Of course I was a tanker so I have a strong preference to 120mm but that's a bit hard to hump around all day with on foot. :rofl:
Not all knowledge is linkable to the internet. At last years Infantry conference I had a conversation with the RTB Soldiers responsible for testing and procurement for the Ranger Batts.

Todd00000
01-21-2012, 10:01
+1

Admittedly, I've bashed the 'AR platform' in the recent past, but it was never over the 5.56 caliber round it fires... Plenty of dead VC and Arabs can attest to the round's effectiveness. My only beef (based on my military experience with the M-16) is with the AR's 'blowback' system that puts way more gunk in the chamber than should be there, imo.

Now. Penetration-wise, the 7.62x39 round does have it beat. But then the 5.56 just simply tears up the Russian caliber in the accuracy department. So, with the origional question being: 'Which has the better knock down power?', I'm thinking that the 7.62 comes out on top-- although, I'm sure absolutely NOBODY wants to get shot by either... :whistling:
Not sure when you were shooting your M16, but rounds with the proper mil spec "powder" are much cleaner than what a lot of GIs where shooting in 'Nam; and it still boils down to placement and the psychology of the person, not the size or speed of the round. (See my previous post for some examples and the FBI report.)

M&P15T
01-21-2012, 10:13
As a side note, M193 5.56 at close (SD/HD) range is very nasty out of an AR. The good thing about that, is that you can practice with the same ammo you use for SD/HD.

And good M193 is accurate as all get-out if you have a 1/9 twist barrel.

fredtheredfrog
01-21-2012, 10:18
The only complaint I have about 5.56 is it's lack of penatration of hard barriers. Stone and mud buildings resist it fairly well, while 7.62x39 will zip right through. My personal opinion is that on soft targets 5.56 is adequate.

M&P15T
01-21-2012, 10:33
The only complaint I have about 5.56 is it's lack of penatration of hard barriers. Stone and mud buildings resist it fairly well, while 7.62x39 will zip right through. My personal opinion is that on soft targets 5.56 is adequate.

I've shot some M193 through 1/4 steel (granted, at very close range), and also I've shot it through some "bullet proof" glass taken out of a ghetto convience store. The same glass was catching .40 and .357SIG rounds inside it, but the M193 went through it like it wasn't there.

UniversalBrow06
01-21-2012, 11:32
OP, I am not certain if you're talking strictly about cartridge preference or advice on which rifle to get. I thought you said you were considering either going the AK/SKS route or the AR route, is this correct? If it is, then you should obviously consider the platforms before the cartridge as it is very easy to get either an AK in 5.56/.223 or 5.45x39 or an AR in 7.62x39.

IMHO, it isnt even close, an AR mostly in 5.56 gets my vote every time. 5.56 is very well designed and is much more capable and versatile round than 7.62x39. Having owned AK's, SKS's, and AR's, it is clear to me just how much better the AR platform is. Take an Arsenal AK (one of the nicest AK's available right now, and definitely a fine gun in many respects) and compare it to a LaRue Tactical OBR or LWRC. There is no comparison. You can do much more with more cartridge choices and more preferred configurations easier and with more quality if you go AR.

If you MUST have a .30 caliber, go with an AR in 300 Blackout. From the pics of Shot this year, it doesn't look like the 300 will be fading away anytime soon. That way if you change your mind, you can go to 5.56/.223 or 5.45x39 or 7.62x39 or 6.5 or 6.8 or .22lr or 9mm or .50 or .480 without having to buy a whole different gun

M&P15T
01-21-2012, 11:51
If you MUST have a .30 caliber, go with an AR in 300 Blackout. From the pics of Shot this year, it doesn't look like the 300 will be fading away anytime soon.

FYI

300Blackout is pretty much a short-range round, really meant for working with supressors, 200 yards and in.

Airborne Infantryman
01-21-2012, 11:57
<---------- Has seen first-hand what 5.56mm and 7.62mm does to people in my tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. :shocked: I'd feel comfortable with either one.

Restless28
01-21-2012, 11:57
Every single major military conflict in recent history, basically since being introduced. At least militarily. Conflicts have been left unfinished or even half assed due to politics but never due to the lack of capacity and power from our military.

Pretty badass rifle and an an important American icon, which adds a lot to its glory!

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee56/crsuribe/031110mc_ammo_800.jpg

Every single conflict around the world?

Spiffums
01-21-2012, 12:00
Either works well on smelly bearded men when shot in the face.

Cole125
01-21-2012, 12:02
Not this **** again!!! :alex:

First of all the original poster sounds like a ignorant troll, or possibly just some 16 year old kid that needs some education.

IMO the AR15/5.56 is better in almost every way than the Russian guns and 7.62.

mac66
01-21-2012, 12:03
Only requirement my state has is "centerfire mushrooming ammuntion".

7.62x39 is plenty for deer. Its pretty similar to .30-30win and no one would argue that is a bad caliber for deer.

Well, I've killed lots of deer with both the X39 and the 30-30. The X39 is not the same as or can even hold of candle to the 30-30 in terms of performance on animals. Remember the X39 is a 123gr or so bullet while the 30-30 is a 150 or 170 gr bullet. Big difference in performance even if you load heavier bullets into a X39 case.

I have also killed quite a few deer with .223s. I have had fewer deer hit in the vitals run away from a .223 than with a 7.62x39.

Of course we are talking soft point bullets for hunting not FMJs which is what is typically used for wars/defense.

So what is better? The 5.56 is more accurate at longer ranges than the X39. It is lighter weight and you can carry more of it. It does the job at shorter distances to the point where the person hit isn't going to tell the difference. I think the AR is a better weapons system overall but using FMJs in either the AR or AK makes them about the same in terms of lethality. So it comes down to whether you like the AR or AK platform better.

Restless28
01-21-2012, 12:10
Not this **** again!!! :alex:

First of all the original poster sounds like a ignorant troll, or possibly just some 16 year old kid that needs some education.

IMO the AR15/5.56 is better in almost every way than the Russian guns and 7.62.

In almost every way?

USDefender
01-21-2012, 12:14
Well, I've killed lots of deer with both the X39 and the 30-30. The X39 is not the same as or can even hold of candle to the 30-30 in terms of performance on animals. Remember the X39 is a 123gr or so bullet while the 30-30 is a 150 or 170 gr bullet. Big difference in performance even if you load heavier bullets into a X39 case.

I have also killed quite a few deer with .223s. I have had fewer deer hit in the vitals run away from a .223 than with a 7.62x39.

Of course we are talking soft point bullets for hunting not FMJs which is what is typically used for wars/defense.

So what is better? The 5.56 is more accurate at longer ranges than the X39. It is lighter weight and you can carry more of it. It does the job at shorter distances to the point where the person hit isn't going to tell the difference. I think the AR is a better weapons system overall but using FMJs in either the AR or AK makes them about the same in terms of lethality. So it comes down to whether you like the AR or AK platform better.

While I personally believe that there really is no argument that can stand up versus your 'real world' experience, I think, at this point, that it's important to emphasize that the OP wasn't asking 'which round is better?' so much as 'Which round has better knockdown power?'

Considering that the 7.62 round far out-penetrates the 5.56, I would think the answer to his question to be obvious, then.

Not sure when you were shooting your M16, but rounds with the proper mil spec "powder" are much cleaner than what a lot of GIs where shooting in 'Nam; and it still boils down to placement and the psychology of the person, not the size or speed of the round. (See my previous post for some examples and the FBI report.)


All of my 'M-16 experience' happened in the late 80s, at which time the Army was using the exact same bullet-powder combos that it uses now. And it was with that 5.56 ammo that I shot 'expert', every time I qualified, after basic.

I'm not impuning the ballisitcs or accuracy of the round. I'm saying that when you're trying to stop a compact car that's headded toward your position, you're better off filling the engine block and windshield with 7.62x39 rounds as opposed to 5.56. And, believe me, when you're under that kind of duress, great shot placement isn't exactly easy to pull off, if it's even possible.

As far as 'psychology' is concerned, I've never worried about it unless my rifle jamed the way it did while I was on an 'E&E' (Escape & Evasion) course in 1988, West Germany... Then, it was my 'psychology' a.k.a. 'common sense' that educated me to the fact that a less-accurate rifle that works no matter what (AK family) is far superior to a very accurate rifle that jams when it gets too dirty (AR/M-16 family).

Radian
01-21-2012, 12:17
Funny how this crops up. Really the question is application. Fired from a bolt gun, from a semi auto in the US, from a select fire rifle carried around overseas?

Both cause catastrophic screaming injury. Being shot in the femur or humerus with either is a significant event. Either at 300m center mass is life altering.

Rifle rounds cause rifle injury. That said they are BOTH effective at their primary purpose which is being fired from a select fire weapon on a battlefield.

There is a reason DMs may use a 762 offering and there is a reason the 556 exists.

M&P15T
01-21-2012, 12:22
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee56/crsuribe/031110mc_ammo_800.jpg
That is one sweet tactical mustache!!!:rofl:

Also, does that look like a 16" or 18" AR to anyone else other than me?

ltj9296
01-21-2012, 12:33
A few years ago I was trying to decide if I wanted to go 7.62 or 5.56. I wanted a AK or a AR and to stock up on ammo. I decided to go with the ak in 7.62 because I thought it would be more effective as a hunting round, there is a lot of deer in my area. Fast forward several years later and I am happy with my choice, the ak is fun to shoot and the 7.62x39 does not break the bank. The truth is I would most likely be just as happy with the ar in 5.56.
What's funny is I have never taken my ak hunting once, I always take my trusty old .270. Just imho there is not a big enough difference in the 7.62 and 5.56 to get very excited about either way.

A-Train
01-21-2012, 15:02
Not all knowledge is linkable to the internet. At last years Infantry conference I had a conversation with the RTB Soldiers responsible for testing and procurement for the Ranger Batts.

Fair enough Todd. And certainly just because someone can link to an article on the internet doesn't make something true (we all know how much garbage, lies, and opinion are out there in cyber-space, just look at a lot of threads here on GlockTalk as solid evidence of that :uglylol:).

I just know from having personally shot the civilian version of the Scar Heavy (the 17) that I had a hard time remembering if it was the Scar 17 or Scar 16 I had just been shooting (I shot them back to back for about an hour). I found the recoil extremely mild for a 7.62 rifle and unless those Rangers were running their ACOG's over with a deuce and half (and even then I'd bet they still work) on that zero range I would say that they were perhaps exaggerating just a bit in what they told you (although I've never known a Ranger to exagerate :wedgie:).

I still think that all things being equal the ability to carry about twice as many rounds for the same weight gives the edge to the 5.56 in a combat situation (as much as I love the ballistics, lethality, and advantages of the 7.62/.308 round).

Todd00000
01-21-2012, 15:52
While I personally believe that there really is no argument that can stand up versus your 'real world' experience, I think, at this point, that it's important to emphasize that the OP wasn't asking 'which round is better?' so much as 'Which round has better knockdown power?'

Considering that the 7.62 round far out-penetrates the 5.56, I would think the answer to his question to be obvious, then.




All of my 'M-16 experience' happened in the late 80s, at which time the Army was using the exact same bullet-powder combos that it uses now. And it was with that 5.56 ammo that I shot 'expert', every time I qualified, after basic.

I'm not impuning the ballisitcs or accuracy of the round. I'm saying that when you're trying to stop a compact car that's headded toward your position, you're better off filling the engine block and windshield with 7.62x39 rounds as opposed to 5.56. And, believe me, when you're under that kind of duress, great shot placement isn't exactly easy to pull off, if it's even possible.

As far as 'psychology' is concerned, I've never worried about it unless my rifle jamed the way it did while I was on an 'E&E' (Escape & Evasion) course in 1988, West Germany... Then, it was my 'psychology' a.k.a. 'common sense' that educated me to the fact that a less-accurate rifle that works no matter what (AK family) is far superior to a very accurate rifle that jams when it gets too dirty (AR/M-16 family).
Your car example is why a squad is equipped with different weapons. I was talking about the psychology of the person getting shot, read the FBI report.

Todd00000
01-21-2012, 15:55
I still think that all things being equal the ability to carry about twice as many rounds for the same weight gives the edge to the 5.56 in a combat situation (as much as I love the ballistics, lethality, and advantages of the 7.62/.308 round).
I agree, I carried 300 rounds of 5.56 with no problem. My old brain just remembered the Rangers said they wouldn't hold zero, not break, the ACOG.

AK_Stick
01-21-2012, 16:30
All of my 'M-16 experience' happened in the late 80s, at which time the Army was using the exact same bullet-powder combos that it uses now. And it was with that 5.56 ammo that I shot 'expert', every time I qualified, after basic.


Odd, I didn't know we were issuing Mod 262, MK 318, and M855A1 back in the 80s?



http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee56/crsuribe/031110mc_ammo_800.jpg
That is one sweet tactical mustache!!!:rofl:

Also, does that look like a 16" or 18" AR to anyone else other than me?

Looks like a 20 inch M16A4 to me, and a 14.5 inch M-4 in the background.....

auto-5
01-21-2012, 18:11
Just get a 308. Problem solved

http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as15/m14_1.jpg

esh325
01-21-2012, 18:32
I know of a USMC Medal of Honor recipient that took 10 DShK rounds to the torso and still killed the VC machine gunner before succumbing to his wounds. Also read “99 Confirmed Kills" you will read a story of Hathcock’s AG putting 10 NATO 7.62 rounds into a VC with no effect. Hathcock had to make a head shot. People need to educate themselves on all the pros and cons before bad mouthing the M4 and 5.56.

Did you know the US Army Rangers don’t like the SCAR 7.62. It doesn’t fill a need and the recoil is so bad that only one scope will work on it, they were breaking ACOGs on the zero range. US Army Rangers like the 5.56 with the M4 and M249 and use the 7.62 in the M-110 and M240B Light.

The below article is good and shows the pros and cons of larger calibers.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news..._ammo_031010w/ (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/03/marine_ammo_031010w/)


Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan, commander of Marine Corps Systems Command, told Marine Corps Times in mid-February that “there’s a long-going argument about the stopping power of 5.56 in general.” But he said even Marines don’t always fall after they’ve been shot by insurgents with multiple 7.62mm rounds, citing Navy Cross recipient Sgt. Maj. Brad Kasal, who was hit with seven 7.62mm rounds in Iraq in 2004 but survived and kept fighting.

“Does that mean that 7.62 rounds don’t have sufficient stopping power?” Brogan asked about Kasal’s actions. “I submit the answer is no. If there had been a central-nervous shot, it might have dropped him. The same is true with 5.56 ammunition. Location is more important than stopping power.”


Read the FBI report.
This man survived a 8 inch knife to his eye for 12 hours. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308678/Man-survives-having-inch-knife-stabbed-left-eye-12-hours.html

This man got stabbed to death with a butterknife
Woman Stab's & Kills Boyfriend With Butter Knife - YouTube

Does that mean the butterknife is a more effective killing tool then the 8 inch knife? While it's true there is no magical bullet that insures instant death, and that all bullets can kill. Some bullets kill better then other bullets. A lot of evidence suggest the 7.62mm is a more effective and consistent killerl then the 5.56x45.

RWBlue
01-21-2012, 18:57
Does that mean the butterknife is a more effective killing tool then the 8 inch knife?

It depends.
Without examining both knives it is hard to tell, but .....
It the 8 inch knife is sharp and the butter knife is dull, the 8 inch knife is a better fighting tool and better for slicing movement. Where as the butter knife is dull and will hurt more and cause more damage going in causing ripping the meat, but lacking a blood grove it will require more strength to go in.




:supergrin: I suggest shooting people before they get close enough to stab them.

sfguard
01-21-2012, 19:54
All I will say when people try to compare the AK versus the AR is that the ballistics from the AR scared the Russians enough (and yes when you develop a whole new weapon because of one your enemy developed it scares you)that they developed something very similar. (The AK74) nuff said

esh325
01-21-2012, 20:54
All I will say when people try to compare the AK versus the AR is that the ballistics from the AR scared the Russians enough (and yes when you develop a whole new weapon because of one your enemy developed it scares you)that they developed something very similar. (The AK74) nuff said
I think they are capable of making mistakes like everybody else.

AK_Stick
01-21-2012, 23:00
If it was such a mistake, why did the whole world commit to going to it?

my762buzz
01-21-2012, 23:14
All I will say when people try to compare the AK versus the AR is that the ballistics from the AR scared the Russians enough (and yes when you develop a whole new weapon because of one your enemy developed it scares you)that they developed something very similar. (The AK74) nuff said


It wasn't the absolute potential terminal ballistics of the 5.56 round that caused the change, because it only has a terminal advantage in wounding in FMJ over M43 when it can tumble. The other advantages such as lighter ammo to carry probably had much more influence in the decision to change.

Plenty of state hunting regulators are so scared of 223 wounding deer and not cleanly killing the animals quickly that they banned any centerfire 22 from deer hunts where even 7.62x39 is legal to use. Nuff said.

esh325
01-21-2012, 23:49
If it was such a mistake, why did the whole world commit to going to it?
Because of NATO standardization agreements.

AK_Stick
01-22-2012, 00:25
Because of NATO standardization agreements.



That doesn't explain why non NATO countries adopted it, 5.45, and the continuing world trend of moving away from 7.62.


If it was such a mistake, the Russians would have gone back to the x39. But unsurprisingly they continued to move away from it. Very odd.

cole
01-22-2012, 02:17
That doesn't explain why non NATO countries adopted it, 5.45, and the continuing world trend of moving away from 7.62. If it was such a mistake, the Russians would have gone back to the x39. But unsurprisingly they continued to move away from it. Very odd.
It's not "very odd" IMO, and I don't think "odd" is how you really feel about it either. I agree with the general military/NATO doctrine of capacity over caliber for troops. Here, I think 9mm in handguns and 5.56 in rifles is the right way to go. For example, suppressive fire, "directional fire", point-shooting and (worst-case) spray-n-pray all favor greater capacity. And, as earlier noted, various weapon systems are available within a given unit offering both caliber and capacity.

However, civilian circumstances and military circumstances can and will differ. One example is that in civilian scenarios you are far more likely to be alone (e.g. defending home) whereas, as noted, in the military you will not (e.g. a deployment). Also, in the military you have an armorer available whereas I doubt the average peasant does.

The AR platform requires more maintenance and training, and is more fussy than the AK. The AK design will take more neglect and abuse than the AR. I don't think any objective person would argue different because history bears this out. We, as Americans, often fight war differently, and have access to resources that make the AR a better option, not the least of which is better training and maintenance. So, the AR may well be the better option when maintenance and training is superior.

There is a very good reason the AK47 has been so successful in the hands of our foes. And, the more fussy AR never, ever would have been as effective. Sand. Mud. Abuse. Neglect. Lack of training. Old. Young. Whatever. The AK47 pretty much always works, always has, and at a cheaper price.

The AK is stupid-simple, the AR is not. The cheapest AK47 will often eat the crappiest ammo you can possibly find, whereas even the best AR often will not. However, I agree, once you apply proper training, maintenance and load choice the modern AR and the 5.56 are a very good choice.

But, as civilians, IMO when the world ends or zombies attack, the scenario will be much more similar to that our of current/past AK-weilding enemies. And, IMO, this is where the AK shines. Actually, I view the AK like a Glock and the AR like a 1911 for those that understand that analogy. I like the 1911 most. But, it would not be my first choice if maintenance and training were suspect.

So, it's not "odd", it's just differing circumstance. And, I choose the AK47 for the civilian circumstances I foresee.

byf43
01-22-2012, 06:33
7.62 or 5.56????

I prefer 7.62x51mm AND 5.56x45mm.

Yeah, I bought a couple of 7.62x39mm guns. (MAK-90 and Russian SKS. Never fired either one and recently sold off the SKS. Sold the MAK-90 not too long after buying it.) Don't miss either one.

Recently heard that .223/5.56x45mm is legal for deer in Maryland (rifle counties, only!) True. . . . ???????? :dunno:
Used to be 6mm (.243) was minimum caliber. Now, according to what I'm hearing, if the round produces 1,000 ft. lbs. of energy, it's legal.

Still, .223/5.56x45mm is not my preferred round for big game.

Bradysmmrs
01-22-2012, 06:33
The way I understood it was that the 5.56 expells its inertia into its targets faster, causing the bullet to tumble end over end destroying more tissue.

Restless28
01-22-2012, 06:40
It's not "very odd" IMO, and I don't think "odd" is how you really feel about it either. I agree with the general military/NATO doctrine of capacity over caliber for troops. Here, I think 9mm in handguns and 5.56 in rifles is the right way to go. For example, suppressive fire, "directional fire", point-shooting and (worst-case) spray-n-pray all favor greater capacity. And, as earlier noted, various weapon systems are available within a given unit offering both caliber and capacity.

However, civilian circumstances and military circumstances can and will differ. One example is that in civilian scenarios you are far more likely to be alone (e.g. defending home) whereas, as noted, in the military you will not (e.g. a deployment). Also, in the military you have an armorer available whereas I doubt the average peasant does.

The AR platform requires more maintenance and training, and is more fussy than the AK. The AK design will take more neglect and abuse than the AR. I don't think any objective person would argue different because history bears this out. We, as Americans, often fight war differently, and have access to resources that make the AR a better option, not the least of which is better training and maintenance. So, the AR may well be the better option when maintenance and training is superior.

There is a very good reason the AK47 has been so successful in the hands of our foes. And, the more fussy AR never, ever would have been as effective. Sand. Mud. Abuse. Neglect. Lack of training. Old. Young. Whatever. The AK47 pretty much always works, always has, and at a cheaper price.

The AK is stupid-simple, the AR is not. The cheapest AK47 will often eat the crappiest ammo you can possibly find, whereas even the best AR often will not. However, I agree, once you apply proper training, maintenance and load choice the modern AR and the 5.56 are a very good choice.

But, as civilians, IMO when the world ends or zombies attack, the scenario will be much more similar to that our of current/past AK-weilding enemies. And, IMO, this is where the AK shines. Actually, I view the AK like a Glock and the AR like a 1911 for those that understand that analogy. I like the 1911 most. But, it would not be my first choice if maintenance and training were suspect.

So, it's not "odd", it's just differing circumstance. And, I choose the AK47 for the civilian circumstances I foresee.

Excellent post.:supergrin:

AK_Stick
01-22-2012, 07:29
It's not "very odd" IMO, and I don't think "odd" is how you really feel about it either. I agree with the general military/NATO doctrine of capacity over caliber for troops. Here, I think 9mm in handguns and 5.56 in rifles is the right way to go. For example, suppressive fire, "directional fire", point-shooting and (worst-case) spray-n-pray all favor greater capacity. And, as earlier noted, various weapon systems are available within a given unit offering both caliber and capacity.

However, civilian circumstances and military circumstances can and will differ. One example is that in civilian scenarios you are far more likely to be alone (e.g. defending home) whereas, as noted, in the military you will not (e.g. a deployment). Also, in the military you have an armorer available whereas I doubt the average peasant does.

The AR platform requires more maintenance and training, and is more fussy than the AK. The AK design will take more neglect and abuse than the AR. I don't think any objective person would argue different because history bears this out. We, as Americans, often fight war differently, and have access to resources that make the AR a better option, not the least of which is better training and maintenance. So, the AR may well be the better option when maintenance and training is superior.

There is a very good reason the AK47 has been so successful in the hands of our foes. And, the more fussy AR never, ever would have been as effective. Sand. Mud. Abuse. Neglect. Lack of training. Old. Young. Whatever. The AK47 pretty much always works, always has, and at a cheaper price.

The AK is stupid-simple, the AR is not. The cheapest AK47 will often eat the crappiest ammo you can possibly find, whereas even the best AR often will not. However, I agree, once you apply proper training, maintenance and load choice the modern AR and the 5.56 are a very good choice.

But, as civilians, IMO when the world ends or zombies attack, the scenario will be much more similar to that our of current/past AK-weilding enemies. And, IMO, this is where the AK shines. Actually, I view the AK like a Glock and the AR like a 1911 for those that understand that analogy. I like the 1911 most. But, it would not be my first choice if maintenance and training were suspect.

So, it's not "odd", it's just differing circumstance. And, I choose the AK47 for the civilian circumstances I foresee.


Thats all well and good, but it has nothing to do with what I was talking about, or saying.


Whats odd, is that if the move to 5.56 was a mistake, that everyone in the world would seemingly make the same mistake, and continue to do so.



And the success of the AK47, had less to do with its oft over stated robustness, and much more to do with its simplicity of design, allowing it to be built in dirt poor, 3rd world gun shops (often leading to aforementioned less than mythical reliability status) and the fact that it can be had by the boat load dirt cheap.

glock2740
01-22-2012, 08:15
Just get both. :cool:

joecoastie
01-22-2012, 09:03
I solved this issue by having rifles in 5.56, 7.62x39, and .308 and having both AKs and ARs. And now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :smoking:

cole
01-22-2012, 12:43
Thats all well and good, but it has nothing to do with what I was talking about, or saying.

Whats odd, is that if the move to 5.56 was a mistake, that everyone in the world would seemingly make the same mistake, and continue to do so.

And the success of the AK47, had less to do with its oft over stated robustness, and much more to do with its simplicity of design, allowing it to be built in dirt poor, 3rd world gun shops (often leading to aforementioned less than mythical reliability status) and the fact that it can be had by the boat load dirt cheap.

I think we actually agree on one point: Moving to the 5.56 for NATO and troops is/was the right choice. I think I made that clear.

What we disagree on is the AK, especially since you seem to argue the AR is as "robust", reliable and "equal" in the circumstances I noted. To be clear, I think the AR is very good. But, I think the AK is better in the circustances I noted. I always have a hard time believing you, and those like you, really believe the AR would have been as succesful and effective as the AK47, even at the same price, from 1947 on. Are you saying that? Cheap and easy to manufacture is a big part; in that it's a cheaper, easier to make gun that works very well. But, the bigger part is it's a cheap, easy to make gun that works better than the AR in harse environments where abuse and neglect are common, and maintenance and training are uncommon. Ever heard of Hi-Point? The handguns are very cheap, but they don't work as well. So, it's not just about cheap, or easy to make, and never has been. Again, with proper training and maintenance I think a modern, quality AR is a very good choice. In reality, less training (required) and less maintenance (required), in addition to cost and ease of fabrication, is what's given the AK the edge in the scenarios I noted. And, that has not changed since 1947.

p.s. As for the OP's question, you can't discuss 7.62x39 or 5.56 without addressing platform. That's pretty obvious to me. I prefer the 7.62x39 because it's far superior to 5.56 in getting through things to get to the target. And, it's certainly a huge bonus it's fired by the AK47.

esh325
01-22-2012, 12:47
That doesn't explain why non NATO countries adopted it, 5.45, and the continuing world trend of moving away from 7.62.


If it was such a mistake, the Russians would have gone back to the x39. But unsurprisingly they continued to move away from it. Very odd.
I don't think the 7.62x39 is ideal, nor is the 5.45x39,7.62x51,or 5.56x45 in my opinion. The Russians never stopped using the 7.62x39, and keep it around when a 5.45x39 is not enough for the job.
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3317/akmchechneya.jpg

Restless28
01-22-2012, 12:50
I think we actually agree on one point: Moving to the 5.56 for NATO and troops is/was the right choice. I think I made that clear.

What we disagree on is the AK, especially since you seem to argue the AR is as "robust", reliable and "equal" in the circumstances I noted. To be clear, I think the AR is very good. But, I think the AK is better in the circustances I noted. I always have a hard time believing you, and those like you, really believe the AR would have been as succesful and effective as the AK47, even at the same price, from 1947 on. Are you saying that? Cheap and easy to manufacture is a big part; in that it's a cheaper, easier to make gun that works very well. But, the bigger part is it's a cheap, easy to make gun that works better than the AR in harse environments where abuse and neglect are common, and maintenance and training are uncommon. Ever heard of Hi-Point? The handguns are very cheap, but they don't work as well. So, it's not just about cheap, or easy to make, and never has been. Again, with proper training and maintenance I think a modern, quality AR could well be the better option in some/many circumstances. In reality, less training (required) and less maintenance (required), in addition to cost and ease of fabrication, is what's given the AK the edge in the scenarios I noted. And, that has not changed since 1947.

p.s. As for the OP's question, you can't discuss 7.62x39 or 5.56 without addressing platform. That's pretty obvious to me. I prefer the 7.62x39 because it's far superior to 5.56 in getting through things to get to the target. And, it's certainly a huge bonus it's fired by the AK47.

Another winner! :cool:

esh325
01-22-2012, 12:51
And the success of the AK47, had less to do with its oft over stated robustness, and much more to do with its simplicity of design, allowing it to be built in dirt poor, 3rd world gun shops (often leading to aforementioned less than mythical reliability status) and the fact that it can be had by the boat load dirt cheap.
The sten gun was is cheaper and simpler to make then the AK, but that design died out. So there's more to the AK's success then simplicity.

AK_Stick
01-22-2012, 14:15
The sten gun was is cheaper and simpler to make then the AK, but that design died out. So there's more to the AK's success then simplicity.


A 9mm sub machine gun, is not really comparable to an assault rifle aside from the fact that they're both guns.


Also, the UK wasn't in the habit of flooding the arms markets with millions of them.


Like wise, saying Russia has kept the 7.62x39 is like saying that we've kept the 7.62x51mm because there are some limited uses of the M-14 and SCAR-H.

AK_Stick
01-22-2012, 14:34
What we disagree on is the AK, especially since you seem to argue the AR is as "robust", reliable and "equal" in the circumstances I noted. To be clear, I think the AR is very good. But, I think the AK is better in the circustances I noted. I always have a hard time believing you, and those like you, really believe the AR would have been as succesful and effective as the AK47, even at the same price, from 1947 on. Are you saying that? Cheap and easy to manufacture is a big part; in that it's a cheaper, easier to make gun that works very well. But, the bigger part is it's a cheap, easy to make gun that works better than the AR in harse environments where abuse and neglect are common, and maintenance and training are uncommon. Ever heard of Hi-Point? The handguns are very cheap, but they don't work as well. So, it's not just about cheap, or easy to make, and never has been. Again, with proper training and maintenance I think a modern, quality AR is a very good choice. In reality, less training (required) and less maintenance (required), in addition to cost and ease of fabrication, is what's given the AK the edge in the scenarios I noted. And, that has not changed since 1947.

p.s. As for the OP's question, you can't discuss 7.62x39 or 5.56 without addressing platform. That's pretty obvious to me. I prefer the 7.62x39 because it's far superior to 5.56 in getting through things to get to the target. And, it's certainly a huge bonus it's fired by the AK47.

Except that, against nearly anything except masonary units (brick, stone etc) 5.56, will out perform 7.62x39mm, and in some cases, 7.62x51mm. Secondly, as often brought up when people seem to bring up the cover into concealment myth, when, or where does this shooting at people you can't see, and hoping you can get through their cover happen? Who advocates this? Because in all my time in the .mil I've seen hardly and cases of such from individual arms. Pretty much the only time anyone does that is when equipped with a medium or heavy machine gun caliber. As most battle field barriers, will often defeat 7.62x39mm and 5.56 equally.


And as for success, yes, what I'm saying is, if they both cost say 10 dollars to make, and 3rd world gunshops had the ability to mass produce them, and there millions on the free market, the AR would enjoy a large share of the AK's success.

The reason you see guys like the Somali pirates, and Afgan rebels using AK's isn't because they love the reliability of the AK design. Its because the Russians flooded the arms market with them for years. When they moved to the AKM, they dumped even more into the market, again when they went the AK-74. You go to arms markets in A-stan/Somalia/Iraq, and the most prevalant rifle you'll find is the AK, because not only can they build versions of it because it requires very little tech to do so, but because there are tons of Russian ones, and every other back shop builders on the market. If you've got a couple thousand dollars, you can outfit a small military with Russian military grade weapons.

Its like the RPG-7. As far as RPG's go, its a decent launcher, but its probably the most prevalent because the Russians damn near gave them away for years.

esh325
01-22-2012, 14:52
A 9mm sub machine gun, is not really comparable to an assault rifle aside from the fact that they're both guns.


Also, the UK wasn't in the habit of flooding the arms markets with millions of them.


Like wise, saying Russia has kept the 7.62x39 is like saying that we've kept the 7.62x51mm because there are some limited uses of the M-14 and SCAR-H.
Cheap is not the only reason the AK got popular there. If AK was designed to be an unreliable piece of crap, then I don't think anybody would really care about it being cheap anymore. Comparable or not, the fact that the sten died out implied that more was needed in a combat weapon then being cheap. They wanted more expensive assault rifles instead.

NEOH212
01-22-2012, 18:20
As a side note, M193 5.56 at close (SD/HD) range is very nasty out of an AR. The good thing about that, is that you can practice with the same ammo you use for SD/HD.

And good M193 is accurate as all get-out if you have a 1/9 twist barrel.

This. :thumbsup:

A-Train
01-22-2012, 19:12
Except that, against nearly anything except masonary units (brick, stone etc) 5.56, will out perform 7.62x39mm, and in some cases, 7.62x51mm. Secondly, as often brought up when people seem to bring up the cover into concealment myth, when, or where does this shooting at people you can't see, and hoping you can get through their cover happen? Who advocates this? Because in all my time in the .mil I've seen hardly and cases of such from individual arms. Pretty much the only time anyone does that is when equipped with a medium or heavy machine gun caliber. As most battle field barriers, will often defeat 7.62x39mm and 5.56 equally.


And as for success, yes, what I'm saying is, if they both cost say 10 dollars to make, and 3rd world gunshops had the ability to mass produce them, and there millions on the free market, the AR would enjoy a large share of the AK's success.

The reason you see guys like the Somali pirates, and Afgan rebels using AK's isn't because they love the reliability of the AK design. Its because the Russians flooded the arms market with them for years. When they moved to the AKM, they dumped even more into the market, again when they went the AK-74. You go to arms markets in A-stan/Somalia/Iraq, and the most prevalant rifle you'll find is the AK, because not only can they build versions of it because it requires very little tech to do so, but because there are tons of Russian ones, and every other back shop builders on the market. If you've got a couple thousand dollars, you can outfit a small military with Russian military grade weapons.

Its like the RPG-7. As far as RPG's go, its a decent launcher, but its probably the most prevalent because the Russians damn near gave them away for years.

Excellent post that I happen to agree with (which of course makes it even more excellent). While I did make the comment that 7.62/.308 does make cover into concealment more effectively than 5.56 I was referring to it more in it's incarnation as a light/medium machine gun (M240 for instance). The beloved .50 cal does this even better of course but people aren't typically man carrying those around the battlefield (unless you're a sniper I suppose).

AK's are everywhere because they are cheap, easy to keep running, and were given away to almost anyone that wanted them during the cold war (and probably still today).

cole
01-22-2012, 20:59
... AK's are everywhere because they are cheap, easy to keep running, and were given away to almost anyone that wanted them during the cold war (and probably still today).

The part (I put) in bold has more to do with the AK47 success than anything. I think many AR fans breeze over this fact as you have done, and try to misdirect focus to how cheap and easy the AK is to make as the main reason for its success. I owned the AR; great gun. I own the AK47; better for my purposes. But, being familiar with both, there is no-way-no-how, given the variety of harsh environments the AK47 has proven itself in, that the equally unmaintained, abused and neglected AR would have ever enjoyed the success (e.g. due to reliability) of the AK47 in the hands of the untrained masses that made it famous since 1947. IMO, it's just plain the wrong arguement to try and make for the AR. The right arguement IMO is that the 5.56 and AR is the better troop/NATO weapon when training and maintenance is superior. That I agree with.

Except that, against nearly anything except masonary units (brick, stone etc) 5.56, will out perform 7.62x39mm, and in some cases, 7.62x51mm. Secondly, as often brought up when people seem to bring up the cover into concealment myth, when, or where does this shooting at people you can't see, and hoping you can get through their cover happen? Who advocates this? Because in all my time in the .mil I've seen hardly and cases of such from individual arms. Pretty much the only time anyone does that is when equipped with a medium or heavy machine gun caliber. As most battle field barriers, will often defeat 7.62x39mm and 5.56 equally. ...

Interesting your bring up "myth" because the AR camp loves the accuracy arguement for those mythical 300m headshots in suburbia. Again, we're talking civilian applications here. I see far more value in close quarters barrier penetration of all kinds than 300m headshots. Opinions vary on that one however. Regardless, the heavier 7.62x39 will defeat far more real-world barriers (vs. the lighter 5.56) than just brick. Capacity and weight is a very solid arguement in favor of the AR in suburbia and where debate energy is better spent IMO. Accuracy, too I guess. But, history does not support much else.

RMTactical
01-22-2012, 21:14
THe AK round will hit harder and is generally thought to be the better penetrator of hard barriers. The 5.56 offers a flatter trajectory, generally better quality ammo and better long range abilities. It may not be quite as capable in some ways as the Ruskie, but it does inflict tissue damage well disproportionate to its size.

This pretty much nails it.

What it all comes down to though is shot placement. Put the rounds in the right spot and people wont notice what they were shot with most of the time...

AK_Stick
01-22-2012, 21:48
Interesting your bring up "myth" because the AR camp loves the accuracy arguement for those mythical 300m headshots in suburbia. Again, we're talking civilian applications here. I see far more value in close quarters barrier penetration of all kinds than 300m headshots. Opinions vary on that one however. Regardless, the heavier 7.62x39 will defeat far more real-world barriers (vs. the lighter 5.56) than just brick. Capacity and weight is a very solid arguement in favor of the AR in suburbia and where debate energy is better spent IMO. Accuracy, too I guess. But, history does not support much else.



So your argument is that its unlikely to have to shoot 300m as a civilian, but turn right around and say that its realistic to expect to find yourself in some sort of extended gunfight, shooting through intermediate barriers with a rifle as a civilian?


Ok, good luck with that.

Roger2fan
01-22-2012, 21:56
It kind of sounds like your doing some target shooting and for cheaper ammo I think the 7.62 is your best deal

cole
01-22-2012, 22:25
So your argument is that its [less] unlikely to have to shoot 300m as a civilian, but turn right around and say that its [more] realistic to expect to find yourself in some sort of extended gunfight, shooting through intermediate barriers with a rifle as a civilian?

Ok, good luck with that.

Yes, the above is what I'm saying. I did need to tone down your clearly exaggerated-to-try-and-make-your-point attempt at articulation of my opinion though. And, thanks for the well wishings; I'll take all the luck I can get when the zombies attack. :supergrin:

my762buzz
01-23-2012, 01:28
Well there you have it. The original post asked to whether a 30 caliber bullet outperforms a 22 caliber bullet in terminal ballistics. The physics of the 30 is favored over a 22. The military acrobatics of FMJ does NOT become the limiting factor in this discussion because the OP did not limit this to FMJ so all bullet designs are considered fair game. Whether a 5.56/223 is a bit more accurate when doing a REAL COMPARISON, this is not relevent. What is very relevant is what a larger diameter bullet can do when we do not limit our thinking to military spec FMJ and think a bit outside the box. Parroting old rehearsed mantras that were culturally burned into the brain makes people sound like a robot. How about a bit more creative?

A 22 caliber bullet is like a midsize car. A 30 is more like an Ford Bronco.
Which one can do more damage to the building ?
Answer: The Bronco can.

A 22 inch steel wrecking ball versus a 30 inch wrecking ball.
Which does more damage?
Answer: The 30 inch one

Conan1
01-23-2012, 02:06
In KY, any centerfire cartridge is legal for deer hunting now. Since I've personally killed 6 deer with the .223 in the last 3 yrs and they were DRT, I really like this round.

crazymoose
01-23-2012, 04:35
Well there you have it. The original post asked to whether a 30 caliber bullet outperforms a 22 caliber bullet in terminal ballistics. The physics of the 30 is favored over a 22. The military acrobatics of FMJ does NOT become the limiting factor in this discussion because the OP did not limit this to FMJ so all bullet designs are considered fair game. Whether a 5.56/223 is a bit more accurate when doing a REAL COMPARISON, this is not relevent. What is very relevant is what a larger diameter bullet can do when we do not limit our thinking to military spec FMJ and think a bit outside the box. Parroting old rehearsed mantras that were culturally burned into the brain makes people sound like a robot. How about a bit more creative?

A 22 caliber bullet is like a midsize car. A 30 is more like an Ford Bronco.
Which one can do more damage to the building ?
Answer: The Bronco can.

A 22 inch steel wrecking ball versus a 30 inch wrecking ball.
Which does more damage?
Answer: The 30 inch one

If you want to talk physics, you're overlooking velocity, which is a pretty big part of the equation. Yes, all things equal, if you have similarly-constructed (note that I compared A-Max bullets in the various calibers on the gel tests on the first page) .30 cal and .22 cal bullets going the same speed, the .30 wins.

However, speed plays a role in the amount of damage the bullet will do. Look at the pictures on page 1 of this thread. The 7.62 NATO wins pretty clearly, because it's big and fast. But when it's 5.56 vs. 7.62x39, it's more or less a tie. The 7.62x39 penetrates about an inch more, and the 5.56 looks to do a bit more temporary and permanent cavitation via fragmentation effects. Why? Because it's small and fast vs. bigger and slower.

Everyone keeps talking about how devastating the 7.62x39 can be as a combat round once it's no longer limited to FMJ. I agree. It is devastating. But no more devastating than the 5.56, when you compare the best loads in each caliber. If anyone knows of a more effective loading in 7.62x39 than the 123 grain Hornady TAP with the AMax bullet, I'd be interested in seeing the tests. As far as I know, this is the most effective bullet for the caliber.

my762buzz
01-23-2012, 05:19
If you want to talk physics, you're overlooking velocity, which is a pretty big part of the equation. Yes, all things equal, if you have similarly-constructed (note that I compared A-Max bullets in the various calibers on the gel tests on the first page) .30 cal and .22 cal bullets going the same speed, the .30 wins.

However, speed plays a role in the amount of damage the bullet will do. Look at the pictures on page 1 of this thread. The 7.62 NATO wins pretty clearly, because it's big and fast. But when it's 5.56 vs. 7.62x39, it's more or less a tie. The 7.62x39 penetrates about an inch more, and the 5.56 looks to do a bit more temporary and permanent cavitation via fragmentation effects. Why? Because it's small and fast vs. bigger and slower.

Everyone keeps talking about how devastating the 7.62x39 can be as a combat round once it's no longer limited to FMJ. I agree. It is devastating. But no more devastating than the 5.56, when you compare the best loads in each caliber. If anyone knows of a more effective loading in 7.62x39 than the 123 grain Hornady TAP with the AMax bullet, I'd be interested in seeing the tests. As far as I know, this is the most effective bullet for the caliber.

What about 150 grain 7.62x39 bullet at 2300 fps that was designed to distribute its payload into the same range of depth as the gel models that you posted?
Corbon loads a 150 gr at 2300 fps. Hornady does not have a 150 grain one yet that is designed to work at this speed for this caliber to distribute an optimal amount of expansion/fragmentation. However, if you consider the fact that it can be done then you have a bullet with 20 % more weight at the same speed. The dynamics change and you have a more apples to apples comparison of heavier bullet profiles. If the amount of damage is proportional to the weight of the bullet at the same speed, then 20% more weight should produce 20% more damage in the ballistic gel testing. The potential is there. Barnes has a TAC X bullet that looks about the closest to what might work for this.

triggerjerk
01-23-2012, 12:28
Here is a link to a pdf about the Barnes Tac-X in 7.62X39mm.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ballistic_Gel_Experiments/BARNES/Barnes_7.62x39_123gr_TAC-X.pdf

It looks very capable.

Here it is in 70gr 5.56mm

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ballistic_Gel_Experiments/BARNES/Barnes_5.56_70gr_TAC-X.pdf

Seems the 7.62X39 has an edge after barriers although both look great.

cole
01-24-2012, 01:01
Here is a link to a pdf about the Barnes Tac-X in 7.62X39mm.
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ballistic_Gel_Experiments/BARNES/Barnes_7.62x39_123gr_TAC-X.pdf. It looks very capable.

Here it is in 70gr 5.56mm
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ballistic_Gel_Experiments/BARNES/Barnes_5.56_70gr_TAC-X.pdf

Seems the 7.62X39 has an edge after barriers although both look great.

You know, I still waste too much time talking I think. Pictures are worth 1,000 words. I've read repeated data showing the superior barrier performance of the heavier 7.62x39 vs. the lighter 5.56 when optimal loads are compared. And, physics since the beginning of time supports the heavier object will be superior at the relative speeds each travel. However, many dudes remain visual nonetheless. Simple (representative example) pic below to show how "equal" they are (5.56 top and 7.62x39 bottom). The question IMO is how much is enough and this is where bias and opinion will vary I guess.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-dr1svFBCpYo/Tx5UFz7pfkI/AAAAAAAAFVk/X8vBBiD7hWE/s800/7.63x39%252520vs.%2525205.56x45%252520%252528Large%252529.jpg

Link

my762buzz
01-24-2012, 02:28
You know, I still waste too much time talking I think. Pictures are worth 1,000 words. I've read repeated data showing the superior barrier performance of the heavier 7.62x39 vs. the lighter 5.56 when optimal loads are compared. And, physics since the beginning of time supports the heavier object will be superior at the relative speeds each travel.


Sometimes I feel the same way. I been looking at other peoples comparisons and many of my own since the 1990s and usually seem to conclude the same thing.

triggerjerk
01-24-2012, 08:34
Great .308 footage.

OctoberRust
01-24-2012, 14:20
This is just an AK vs AR thread.

Knockdown? The AK is basically a 30 and up round 30/30 caliber, semi-auto carbine. The 30/30 has killed millions of deers. The 5.56? Pretty much illegal to hunt deer. IMO, it's cruel to hunt deer with a 5.56 or .223.

How many wars/conflicts has the AR won? How many has the AK won?

What's the point of the OP's question?


:rofl::rofl:

It almost sounds like you just purchased an AK... Maybe an atlantic arms one or something.... :upeyes::rofl:

'nuff said.

Restless28
01-24-2012, 18:30
:rofl::rofl:

It almost sounds like you just purchased an AK... Maybe an atlantic arms one or something.... :upeyes::rofl:

'nuff said.

Get over it.

Aceman
01-24-2012, 21:32
Wow - the OP asked a simple question and four pages of total crap followed.

You guys could have asked about what he was planning on knocking down...or how far, etc...but don't let such trivial issues stop you from answering.

It is really easy to tell from the responses who has not actually shot things with various calibers, or who has learned everything they know from gun rags, or were brainwashed in boot camp. This thread gives a great list of people NOT to pay attention to...

Bottom line: Let go of the 500yd shot crap, forget the "if" it tumbles BS, and get some sense about you. All things being being equal, a .30 cal (7,62x39) round has more knockdown than any .223 (even those REALLY Heavy 75g!!!)

Take 100 maybe 120lb hogs and shoot them with each at 120 yards and see what happens.

The round that will MOST OFTEN (and I'll even say significantly more often) knock the hog down will be the x39 hands down.

And .308 will beat both of them.

And 30-06 can do anything .308 can but better!

crazymoose
01-24-2012, 21:51
You know, I still waste too much time talking I think. Pictures are worth 1,000 words. I've read repeated data showing the superior barrier performance of the heavier 7.62x39 vs. the lighter 5.56 when optimal loads are compared. And, physics since the beginning of time supports the heavier object will be superior at the relative speeds each travel. However, many dudes remain visual nonetheless. Simple (representative example) pic below to show how "equal" they are (5.56 top and 7.62x39 bottom). The question IMO is how much is enough and this is where bias and opinion will vary I guess.

The problem is that these gel tests are comparing bullets designed specifically to control expansion and not to fragment. This is good when shooting through barriers or when hunting. This is not good when you're shooting primarily at humans that are not behind auto glass.

crazymoose
01-24-2012, 21:58
Wow - the OP asked a simple question and four pages of total crap followed.

You guys could have asked about what he was planning on knocking down...or how far, etc...but don't let such trivial issues stop you from answering.

It is really easy to tell from the responses who has not actually shot things with various calibers, or who has learned everything they know from gun rags, or were brainwashed in boot camp. This thread gives a great list of people NOT to pay attention to...

Bottom line: Let go of the 500yd shot crap, forget the "if" it tumbles BS, and get some sense about you. All things being being equal, a .30 cal (7,62x39) round has more knockdown than any .223 (even those REALLY Heavy 75g!!!)

Take 100 maybe 120lb hogs and shoot them with each at 120 yards and see what happens.

The round that will MOST OFTEN (and I'll even say significantly more often) knock the hog down will be the x39 hands down.

And .308 will beat both of them.

And 30-06 can do anything .308 can but better!

For all the physiological similarities (I'm not being sarcastic), the bottom line is that humans and pigs are not built the same. Hogs are long front-to-back, and skinny side-to-side. Humans are skinny front-to-back, and wider sideways. Most of the time when you're shooting at a hog, you're shooting at it's side. Ideally, you have a shot where the round will take out both lungs and the heart or major blood vessels. You want penetration to hit all the organs. With a human, most of the time you're shooting at the front or the back of the torso. The important stuff isn't all that deep in the torso, so you want expansion to increase the chance that the wound cavity takes out something important, because you don't need a ton of penetration to get to it.

If you want to talk about real-world experience, I can point you to a lot of veterans who have seen people shot by 5.56 and by 7.62x39. They'll tell you that the 5.56 kills more often that the 7.62.

my762buzz
01-25-2012, 08:10
For all the physiological similarities (I'm not being sarcastic), the bottom line is that humans and pigs are not built the same. Hogs are long front-to-back, and skinny side-to-side. Humans are skinny front-to-back, and wider sideways. Most of the time when you're shooting at a hog, you're shooting at it's side. Ideally, you have a shot where the round will take out both lungs and the heart or major blood vessels. You want penetration to hit all the organs. With a human, most of the time you're shooting at the front or the back of the torso. The important stuff isn't all that deep in the torso, so you want expansion to increase the chance that the wound cavity takes out something important, because you don't need a ton of penetration to get to it.

If you want to talk about real-world experience, I can point you to a lot of veterans who have seen people shot by 5.56 and by 7.62x39. They'll tell you that the 5.56 kills more often that the 7.62.

99.999% of people shot and killed in the past with 7.62x39 was with FMJ
The people that see FMJ effects are only testifying to FMJ effectiveness.
We all know that FMJ is the least effective design type which is why they are comparing a 5.56 that tumbles to FMJ to FMJ that does not.
So basically this is a non relevant real world experience reference that is often used to emphasize how much better 5.56 does when limited to FMJ.
I have seen live animals shot with real expanding or fragmenting 30 caliber bullets and with expanding or fragmenting 223. The 30 caliber bullets do much better in real life animal shootings when the bullet is designed to actually do some real damage unlike FMJ.
People take great comfort in not understanding the difference and relying on flawed information.

Aceman
01-25-2012, 10:56
7.62x39 SP FTW!

Glock19Fan
01-25-2012, 14:23
Less than a month ago a ANP dude walked to our camp after being shot in the face by another ANP dude. They were arguing over a vest, when someone walked in to break up the arguement. Apparently, one said shut up or I will kill you, and the 3rd guys said the same thing. So he shoots him in the face.

He walked about 400 yards from his checkpoint to our camp to get medevac. He was fine other than not being able to talk well. The bullet entered under his nose and exited just behind his left ear.

As for the statement of "5.56 kills more often than the 7.62", I will partially agree but mostly becuase the ones that get hit with a 5.56 dont have any type of medical training or equipment. There have been guys that continue to fight after taking 7.62x51. Its not longer than a minute, but despite a solid hit its not always instant.

Aceman
01-25-2012, 17:41
Less than a month ago a ANP dude walked to our camp after being shot in the face by another ANP dude. They were arguing over a vest, when someone walked in to break up the arguement. Apparently, one said shut up or I will kill you, and the 3rd guys said the same thing. So he shoots him in the face.

He walked about 400 yards from his checkpoint to our camp to get medevac. He was fine other than not being able to talk well. The bullet entered under his nose and exited just behind his left ear.

As for the statement of "5.56 kills more often than the 7.62", I will partially agree but mostly becuase the ones that get hit with a 5.56 dont have any type of medical training or equipment. There have been guys that continue to fight after taking 7.62x51. Its not longer than a minute, but despite a solid hit its not always instant.

again - the difference between an "anecdote" and real data. I'm sure there are a bunch of cases where guys took a .50 and kept on going. That's not the point.

Which one works MOST of the time under MOST conditions.

The 5.56 hit's not having quality medical is a great example. There was a really good thread about handgun injuries/survival a while ago.

AK_Stick
01-25-2012, 19:41
As for the statement of "5.56 kills more often than the 7.62", I will partially agree but mostly becuase the ones that get hit with a 5.56 dont have any type of medical training or equipment. There have been guys that continue to fight after taking 7.62x51. Its not longer than a minute, but despite a solid hit its not always instant.


We seemed to give medical aid to just about all the people we shot, and then caught. I've seen quite a few Casavac's for EC's.



Most of the EC's I saw shot with center mass hits, were either dead before the security team caught them, or in the process of expiring. While the medics were able to save some, the vast majority of the people I saw shot with 5.56 in the center mass, were KIA.

On the flip side, between co-workers, and associates in the army/aviation I know a hand full of guys who've been shot in the chest and lived.

In my experience, inside a person, 7.62x39mm typically doesn't make much more than a 30 cal hole, unless you're very big, or it travels through a significant portion of your body. But my experience with 7.62x39mm wounds to the torso is a very small number of cases.

I've seen and know quite a few soldiers with extremity hits, legs, arms, etc, and with most of the leg wounds, they were also fairly straight, caliber sized holes.



Either way though, you get penetrating trauma to the chest cavity, I don't care if its a 5.56 from 600m, you're going to die if you don't get some prompt medical attention.

crazymoose
01-25-2012, 22:28
99.999% of people shot and killed in the past with 7.62x39 was with FMJ
The people that see FMJ effects are only testifying to FMJ effectiveness.
We all know that FMJ is the least effective design type which is why they are comparing a 5.56 that tumbles to FMJ to FMJ that does not.
So basically this is a non relevant real world experience reference that is often used to emphasize how much better 5.56 does when limited to FMJ.
I have seen live animals shot with real expanding or fragmenting 30 caliber bullets and with expanding or fragmenting 223. The 30 caliber bullets do much better in real life animal shootings when the bullet is designed to actually do some real damage unlike FMJ.
People take great comfort in not understanding the difference and relying on flawed information.

I'm a big fan of scientific testing. The gel tests show that the top loadings of 5.56mm and 7.62x39 are very, very similar in terminal effects. I brought up the real-world instances for the hunters in the discussion who are talking about how their experiences hunting contradict the gel data.

One would expect the .30 caliber bullets to do better in hunting because there are very few other animals built like humans (unless you're hunting apes), and the 7.62's penetration is often useful in hunting, unlike in shooting humans, where it usually just results in overpenetration.

WoodenPlank
01-25-2012, 22:35
I'm a big fan of scientific testing. The gel tests show that the top loadings of 5.56mm and 7.62x39 are very, very similar in terminal effects. I brought up the real-world instances for the hunters in the discussion who are talking about how their experiences hunting contradict the gel data.

One would expect the .30 caliber bullets to do better in hunting because there are very few other animals built like humans (unless you're hunting apes), and the 7.62's penetration is often useful in hunting, unlike in shooting humans, where it usually just results in overpenetration.

Except gel is not a perfect analog for the human body.

crazymoose
01-25-2012, 22:38
Except gel is not a perfect analog for the human body.

Nothing is. One guy's body won't perfectly predict what a bullet will do to another guy's body. Gel is pretty good, though. Experience in the field with rounds like the 5.56 Mk262 tends to correlate with the nastier-looking holes in the gel.

WoodenPlank
01-25-2012, 22:48
Nothing is. One guy's body won't perfectly predict what a bullet will do to another guy's body. Gel is pretty good, though. Experience in the field with rounds like the 5.56 Mk262 tends to correlate with the nastier-looking holes in the gel.

Exactly. Just gets frustrating when people lean on gel as the end-all/be-all of ballistics, when it has some serious flaws.

RedHaze
01-25-2012, 23:01
7.62x39 to the shoulder. Guy I went through bootcamp with, and worked with in the same line company for ~3+ years. He volunteered to go as a combat replacement to A-stan. This is what he got for it.

Entrance - .30 caliber size
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/58622_126210320763618_100001239536755_166571_2742752_n.jpg
Exit - About half dollar size
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/58622_126210324096951_100001239536755_166572_5584321_n.jpg
Profile
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/57974_126210327430284_100001239536755_166573_7876564_n.jpg

my762buzz
01-26-2012, 11:16
7.62x39 to the shoulder. Guy I went through bootcamp with, and worked with in the same line company for ~3+ years. He volunteered to go as a combat replacement to A-stan. This is what he got for it.

Entrance - .30 caliber size

Exit - About half dollar size


That is a decent size hole for a FMJ hit. His shoulder absorbed a small fraction of the full kinetic energy value. Had it been a quick expansion bullet, his shoulder would have absorbed its capacity limit of internal pressure and then exploded.



For example 2 7.62x39 contrasting comparisons FMJ versus HP or Vmax


shot 1 FMJ versus shot 3 Great HP
Hollowpoint vs. Full Metal Jacket - YouTube



shot 2 and 3 are both quick expansion bullets versus
shot 4 is a slower expansion SP not the same intensity at all
juggs3.MOV - YouTube


Getting shot in the chest with the quick expansion examples shown would most likely lead to a quick fatality and most certainly immediate incapacitation.
The sudden loss of blood pressure and internal shock is pretty effective.



And just for comparison Hornady Tap 75 gr
Hornady TAP 5.56X45mm 75gr BTHP/WC T2* Vs Milk Jugs - YouTube

The 75 grain tap does not seem to induce the same internal pressure level.

TalkToTheGlock
01-26-2012, 12:10
"Damnit, ya gotta shoot em in the head!"


iPhone 4

xXGearheadXx
01-26-2012, 12:29
I like them both so I love the 300 Blackout.

:supergrin:

In the process of building mine...if it wasn't for that stinkin form1....:cool:

triggerjerk
01-26-2012, 12:52
That is a decent size hole for a FMJ hit. His shoulder absorbed a small fraction of the full kinetic energy value. Had it been a quick expansion bullet, his shoulder would have absorbed its capacity limit of internal pressure and then exploded.



For example 2 7.62x39 contrasting comparisons FMJ versus HP or Vmax


shot 1 FMJ versus shot 3 Great HP
Hollowpoint vs. Full Metal Jacket - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUUSk_mDlow)



shot 2 and 3 are both quick expansion bullets versus
shot 4 is a slower expansion SP not the same intensity at all
juggs3.MOV - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhyZ9ZoPJ90&feature=plcp&context=C3427c14UDOEgsToPDskJrMK9rINkdJJAM_NgI4S_u)


Getting shot in the chest with the quick expansion examples shown would most likely lead to a quick fatality and most certainly immediate incapacitation.
The sudden loss of blood pressure and internal shock is pretty effective.



And just for comparison Hornady Tap 75 gr
Hornady TAP 5.56X45mm 75gr BTHP/WC T2* Vs Milk Jugs - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp0b2O99XQI)

The 75 grain tap does not seem to induce the same internal pressure level.

I always get a kick out of your vids :cool: